D&D (2024) One D&D Expert Classes Playtest Document Is Live

The One D&D Expert Class playest document is now available to download. You can access it by signing into your D&D Beyond account at the link below. It contains three classes -- bard, rogue, and ranger, along with three associated subclasses (College of Lore, Thief, and Hunter), plus a number of feats.

Unearthed Arcana Playtest

Unearthed Arcana Playtest Materials Get Unearthed Arcana playtest content, try it out in your game, and provide feedback! Check back regularly for ...

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[Hussar]

And it's not for the sake of "being different." It's for the sake of allowing mundane characters to shine. For allowing low-magic settings. To prevent everything from being magical, which is an annoying trend that D&D has always had, because it's easier to say "you can cast spell" than it is to say "you can perform the following action" and then spend a paragraph describing the action. To allow characters to actually roleplay what they're doing rather than just handwave it as casting a spell. And to keep rangers from being the same as everyone else, because almost every single ranger spell is also on someone else's spell list. Magically speaking, rangers get something like 6 or 7 unique spells. Everything else is shared, and mostly with druids. Why not just play a druid with a bow?

But this has always been true. Rangers have never had ANY unique spells or mechanics. Like, in the entire history of the game. They had spells drawn from other classes. Rangers could track. That's about the only unique mechanics rangers have ever had. And, I'm sorry, but, there's no difference between, "I cast Animal Friendship by holding out a piece of meat to the tiger (or whatever the animal is) and making friendly noises" and "I use my Animal Knack by holding out a piece of meat to the tiger and making friendly noises.". It's identical.

 

[Hussar]

That's right. It's not a spell. Just like a fighter can only take an extra attack or regain hit points once between rests--but it's not a spell. Or a rogue can only get extra damage in fairly specific circumstances.

But extra attack and sneak attack aren't identical to spells. That's the point. These "non-spell" abilities that you want to add to the ranger to make a ranger special are word for word identical to SPELLS. There's no spell, that I can think of off hand, that lets me deal extra damage if I have an ally adjacent. If you want non-magical ranger to be different, then make the abilities different from spells. Don't just give them spells, then a gloss of paint and then claim that it's a "non-magic" ranger when the ranger is word for word identical to the spell casting ranger.

 

[Hussar]

I use counter spell if I got it in a monster stat block. Just did a few days ago. Wanna make a wizard really hate an NPC? Counter spell is great for that.

Also I just ran a tier 3 game with an anti magic zone. The Ranger of the party on a flying carpet all but crashed hard trying to avoid it.

So, yea, I do.

You actually used counter spell on a RANGER? Seriously?

 

[Hussar]

How does one conjure a barrage without either magic or a company of archers?

And yet, funnily enough, rangers have had this as an ability since the first day of 5e. Could do it all day long. No limitations whatsoever. And no one seemed to mind. My ranger, without magic, could drop sixteen (actually seventeen) potential attacks any time he wanted.

But, since we're dropping that ability (at least in the document they do) so, now it becomes a spell. Because, well, why have a non-magical version of a spell? It's a case of simplifying the system. Instead of doubling up on every single spell and turning them into "knacks" or "maneuvers" or whatever other sub-system we want to call them, we're just calling them all "spells".

 

[SakanaSensei]

You actually used counter spell on a RANGER? Seriously?

I agree with you in this, but I did get my Web counterspelled once when I was playing in CoS. Definitely kinda sucked.

 

[darjr]

You actually used counter spell on a RANGER? Seriously?

I wouldn’t be surprised if I had at some point. I’ll grant you I dint remember an instance.

But in the case above it was an anti magic field.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But extra attack and sneak attack aren't identical to spells. That's the point. These "non-spell" abilities that you want to add to the ranger to make a ranger special are word for word identical to SPELLS. There's no spell, that I can think of off hand, that lets me deal extra damage if I have an ally adjacent. If you want non-magical ranger to be different, then make the abilities different from spells. Don't just give them spells, then a gloss of paint and then claim that it's a "non-magic" ranger when the ranger is word for word identical to the spell casting ranger.

It seems like what you're saying is that it doesn't matter to you, so you don't see how it can matter to anyone. Several people have told you it matters to them. What do you think we're doing?

 

[darjr]

Look. If the PCs stumble upon a bunch of Red Wizards and the ranger starts casting a spell, well that’s a proud nail and the Thayans have bags of hammers, the ranger is going to get one.

They dint know he’s a “Ranger”.

 

[darjr]

I will say I think the ship has sailed in the non magic Ranger. Regardless.

Who knows maybe if enough people mention it in the survey they’ll add one or provide a way, but I doubt it at this point.

If they do anything it’ll likely be along the lines of the Scout. I’m guessing.

 

[Olrox17]

Well, VSM components don't need to exist—BCMI (and, I believe, BX) didn't have them.

Tbh, I think they are appropriate for some characters - I appreciate that my wizards must use Dr Strange-like gestures and stuff.